A significant number of people also raised concerns about the new rules themselves and the effect of usability of websites

Since its reporting tool went online at the end of May until the end of November, the ICO received 550 complaints about websites - an average of three per day, the report revealed.

At the same time, the watchdog received 53,000 complaints about spam texts and marketing calls, which the ICO said suggests "consumers' level of awareness and concern about cookies is relatively low."

The ICO audited 200 of the top sites visited by UK users, and any that had received a complaint via the online reporting tool, saying "almost all" of the sites that had taken "significant" steps to address cookies were relying on an implied consent banner - and that was irritating users.

"The majority of concerns from consumers about these sites related to their use of implied consent," it said, adding that one of the major themes of consumer complaints was that people "are unhappy with implied consent mechanisms, especially where cookies are placed immediately on entry to the site".

"A significant number of people also raised concerns about the new rules themselves and the effect of usability of websites," the ICO admitted.

Of the 550 sites reported, 45% provided some information about cookies, and 84% did ask permission to drop cookies.

Letter of the law

The ICO has already taken action to target sites that have received complaints. This autumn, it conducted a "basic visual audit" of 207 of those sites, finding 43% had obtained consent, 33% had taken "limited steps" to make users aware of cookies, and 23% had done nothing.

The watchdog wrote to 100 sites that had been reported - including PC Pro - alerting them of the complaints and "asking them to ensure they are compliant".

"Having visited your website, we are pleased to note you appear to have taken steps to comply, so we are writing to you at this point for information and to encourage you to check your site is fully compliant," the letter reads. "At this point we have not conducted a thorough audit of your site. This letter does not confirm your site is compliant, or suggest it is not, but is intended to keep you informed."

"We do not require a response to this letter and do not intend to take any further action at this point," the letter adds.

The ICO said it was considering 14 sites for further investigation. One of the sites it wrote to in its original letter campaign in May hadn't taken any steps to meet the rules, and the ICO said it would contact the organisation to set a deadline for compliance - and may "name the site" in order to make consumers aware.

The watchdog added that any action it takes would be "proportionate to the risk to consumers", but said if a company refuses to comply, or its use of cookies is "particularly privacy-intrusive", it will consider using its regulatory powers. Those include fines of up to £500,000, but the ICO said earlier this year that fines would be unlikely.

in my household from two teenagers, one ten year old and a Teacher (my wife) none had ever bothered even reading the banners, and mostly just ignored them unless they were in the way. All are heavy Internet users. Is the rest of the population much different? How much has this whole thing cost I wonder, and is there any easily measurable benefit?

The UK implementation of the Cookie law is a farce. It isn't necessarily the ICO's fault as the UK has to implement cookie compliance because of a poorly designed EU law that has been passed in Brussels.

Wow, who saw that coming? Telling users you are doing something they don't understand or care about, whether they like it or not, is annoying? Never.I made a cookie warning for my companies website, we've never rolled it out as it's just likely to cause more problems and it's not like ICO are actually doing anything, and hey if anyone does complain, it's ready to go!

I hate the cookie warning banners as it is, but I hate even more how some non UK based websites have geotargetted cookie banners where the cookie banner at the top of the website appears if it detects you are in the UK, whereas if you access the website from a non UK location, the cookie banner never appears! MySpace is guilty of this.And by the way, I have never, ever noticed cookie consent banners on this website!

Having that stupid banner appearing is hugely irritating. And on the 'Which?' website it actually obliterates the log-in area (there is a secondary log in area further down the page.) In general the ICO's preferred (recommended?) implementation is completely pointless simply because, as has been stated above, the vast majority of users don't know or don't care.As an aside, my browser is configured to delete all cookies on closing.

What does a site do if you say you do not want cookies? Most sites seem to stop working if you don't allow cookies, which is not acceptable, as it is effectively blackmail. Sites should allow for non-cookie operation.